Sigma 24-70 f/2.8: Expensive mistake or schoolboy error?

ajdesq

ajdesq

Messages
246
Edit My Images
Yes
Being SO PLEASED with the Canon 85mm f/1.8 prime lens I bought for my 5D, I decided to upgrade my kit lens. I wanted the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 mark 1, but it's out of stock everywhere. As I'm now off up to the Scottish Islands, I impatiently went for the Sigma instead.

I've just downloaded the first snaps I have taken with it at an event this weekend, and while I'm pleased with anything over about 28mm, if I take any shot wide at 24mm I get some horrendous vignetting:

Vignette.jpg



Vignette2-1.jpg



Am I doing something wrong? Is this to be expected so wide at f/2.8? Have I just made an expensive mistake? Or do you think this is a fault with the lens? Any opinions gratefully received, thanks!
 
Maybe it's a filter, do you have one on it?
 
Did you have a filter on it? I'd be suprised if the lens itself was that bad. I'm sure it's mostly fixable in post, but that's not the point. My sigma 24-70 was never like that.
 
Hood was on 'backwards' as not in use. An £84 UV filter on the front. Thanks for the ideas... will take a couple more snaps later 'naked' when the weather improves. That's the lens that will be naked, not me. The latter would not be pretty.
 
I remembered I owned a Sigma 24-70mm for a little while so I just dug out one of the few shots.

Here it is default:
IMG_6267.jpg

And here it is with "enable profile corrections" ticked in lightroom (from RAW):
IMG_6267-2.jpg


I would think maybe it's just the lens by the fact that Lightroom corrects it so perfectly (as in, it was expecting it...)
 
The one I have does have more noticable vigentting on Fx than it does on my DX camera, though not quite that severe and I don't really worry about it. Rarely use now anyway as I have the Nikon version. However, it is wide, so even the filter can make any vignetting more pronounced, so definitely try without and do expect to get some but nothing you can't correct in post.
 
Thank you Steve, that's really helpful, especially the Photozone review. So... yup, expensive mistake then! :bang::bang::bang:

Although it looks like the Canon equivalent is only marginally better. Despite doing as much research as possible before buying this issue never came up. Ugh.

Am I allowed to be rather disappointed at these results for the money I've just shelled out? I've replaced my Canon 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 and the improvements at 30-70mm come at the cost of loosing 70-135mm and 24-30mm being unusable until about f/4.

Now, do I dare unwrap my second purchase, a Canon 20mm f/2.8 prime?
:dummy:
 
ajdesq said:
Thank you Steve, that's really helpful, especially the Photozone review. So... yup, expensive mistake then! :bang::bang::bang:

Although it looks like the Canon equivalent is only marginally better. Despite doing as much research as possible before buying this issue never came up. Ugh.

Am I allowed to be rather disappointed at these results for the money I've just shelled out? I've replaced my Canon 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 and the improvements at 30-70mm come at the cost of loosing 70-135mm and 24-30mm being unusable until about f/4.

Now, do I dare unwrap my second purchase, a Canon 20mm f/2.8 prime?
:dummy:
Click to expand...

I think you're making a bigger deal out of it than it needs to be. You can easily fix the dark corners with one click in lightroom. Yes it may introduce "noise" or cause lose of detail but it's no big deal (at least for me).

You've gained F/2.8 at 70mm! Two stops faster than your old lens. When before you needed ISO1600 now you can use ISO400.

If picture quality across the entire frame is critical at 24mm, why not use your shiny new 20mm prime instead?

rrreeeelllllaaaaaaxxxxxxxx
 
OK, OK, it looks like 'high expectations' are part of the problem. Indeed I will need to switch lenses if I want quality wide shots. It's just that I do a lot of stuff for magazine articles, and when you're submitting a hundred shots for every one that's produced, you want them to be right straight out of the camera.

At least the Canon one doesn't seem to fair a lot better.

I will go away and re-align my expectations and lower my bar. Thank you everyone for such prompt and helpful advice and support.

I will console myself that the old lens could not have done this:

UKADorset1.jpg
 
ajdesq said:
OK, OK, it looks like 'high expectations' are part of the problem. Indeed I will need to switch lenses if I want quality wide shots. It's just that I do a lot of stuff for magazine articles, and when you're submitting a hundred shots for every one that's produced, you want them to be right straight out of the camera.

At least the Canon one doesn't seem to fair a lot better.

I will go away and re-align my expectations and lower my bar. Thank you everyone for such prompt and helpful advice and support.

I will console myself that the old lens could not have done this:
Click to expand...

It certainly could not!

I don't know if you use lightroom, but the "profile correction" tool will solve this problem instantly. I don't know if it only works in RAW. But it would be a simple case of import, select all, tick the box, sync settings, export. With the added benefits of exporting in any size you want.
 
which version is it, the later HSM?

the couple i can find in lightroom with vig't at 24mm on the 5dmk2 are both underexposed and even then its only minor darkening in the corners.

thats unfiltered also with hood in position.
 
Never used a filter on mine and there is heavy vignetting at 24mm wide open which is odd since its an 82 mm thread.

That was the only downside to the lens but it's nothing you couldnt correct in photoshop. Not like I shot at f2.8 24mm often.

On a 5D2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top